tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post5494859924266326223..comments2023-10-31T07:23:17.922-04:00Comments on The Theos Project: Not that there's anything wrong with that!Jonathan Erdmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-68508928076376590342007-10-27T16:06:00.000-04:002007-10-27T16:06:00.000-04:00Thanks to author.Thanks to author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-16877315986686638262007-10-27T15:17:00.000-04:002007-10-27T15:17:00.000-04:00actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going t...actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-70031620237242709692007-10-26T15:40:00.000-04:002007-10-26T15:40:00.000-04:00Magnific!Magnific!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-54545720960517065032007-10-21T09:43:00.000-04:002007-10-21T09:43:00.000-04:00male+bed: In the context of a list of things that ...male+bed: In the context of a list of things that will keep one out of the kingdom starting with injustice, and including greed (pleonektes, desiring things), and heterosexual promiscuity, it's a waste arguing about something for which there can be no meaning assigned (LSJ) is honest enough not to try). For that matter this compound could mean something as simple as laziness: men who love their beds and sleep the day away without getting on with their jobs. Your euphemistic use of koite should not be taken as primary...especially when the context is the K of G.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-23704101257527055272007-10-20T10:33:00.000-04:002007-10-20T10:33:00.000-04:00On the issue of pleasure and pro-creation in sex, ...On the issue of pleasure and pro-creation in sex, I was reading an interesting new essay discussing the <A HREF="http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn.html" REL="nofollow">Apocryphon of John</A>, a Gnostic (Nag Hammadi) text with a highly developed cosmology. Interestingly, in this text the Father creates with Barbelo, an invisible, virginal Spirit. The result is the Son. But this "union" is not really sexual, per se. It is mysterious. There is "contemplation" and "thought", not necessarily intercourse.<BR/><BR/>Sopia bucks the system and produces an offspring on her own, the result of her own contemplation on the sexual. She is wrong b/c she did not produce an offspring with her husband. <BR/><BR/>"And the Sophia of the Epinoia, being an aeon, conceived a thought from herself and the conception of the invisible Spirit and foreknowledge. She wanted to bring forth a likeness out of herself without the consent of the Spirit, - he had not approved - and without her consort, and without his consideration. And though the person of her maleness had not approved, and she had not found her agreement, and she had thought without the consent of the Spirit and the knowledge of her agreement, (yet) she brought forth."<BR/><BR/>The result is unfortunate. She gives birth to Yaltabaoth: "a form of a lion-faced serpent. And its eyes were like lightning fires which flash. She cast it away from her, outside that place, that no one of the immortal ones might see it, for she had created it in ignorance."<BR/><BR/>Yaltabaoth is trouble for earthlings, representing the devil and darkness and evil in various ways. He eventually deceives Eve and bears two children by her: Cain and Abel. Seth is eventually created by Adam: "And when Adam recognized the likeness of his own foreknowledge, he begot the likeness of the son of man. He called him Seth, according to the way of the race in the aeons."<BR/><BR/>The purpose of recalling this story is that the essay I read took the position (reasonable, so it seems to my limited knowledge of the Apocryphon of John) that in the Aocryphon there is a general move to associate sex (in the physical sense) with imperfection, while creation that is less sexual is more pure. The Father creates Barbelo by thought: "And his thought performed a deed and she came forth." When the Father procreates by Barbelo it is by virture of looking at Barbelo with pure light: "And he looked at Barbelo with the pure light which surrounds the invisible Spirit, and (with) his spark, and she conceived from him. He begot a spark of light with a light resembling blessedness. But it does not equal his greatness. This was an only-begotten child of the Mother-Father which had come forth; it is the only offspring, the only-begotten one of the Father, the pure Light."<BR/><BR/>The point of this Gnostic expedition is simply to say that in various ancient views of sexuality and the act of sex itself (regardless of whether it was male-male or male-female) was regarded as something of a necessary evil. Hence the practice of chastity and sexual asceticism in the early church and later into the middle ages was non infrequent. Some early Christians practiced "spiritual marriages" whereby opposite gender couples lived with one another in purity. As I understand it, the practice of "spiritual marriage" amongst monks in the Medieval church resulted in an extra amount of grace for those monks who could look upon the nakedness of a woman and suppress their sexual desires.<BR/><BR/>Some Christians throughout history have seen sexuality only as a means of procreation, with pleasure being something of a necessary evil. I have heard the viewpoint that "the Holy Spirit leaves the bedroom" when the sex act occurs. On the other hand, as I understand it, it is also possible that some early Christian groups (perhaps more Gnostic?) viewed the sex act between a husband and wife as something of a sacrament. (I'm kind of speculating on this last one.)<BR/><BR/>So, the question regarding the nature of sexuality is an important one, with many varying views of the purpose of sexuality and creation. Is sex for creation purposes only? Is it more "holy" to abstain?<BR/><BR/>In our current American culture I would say that sexuality is now almost completely de-mysticized - that is, sex is purely a physical and emotional interaction with the emotional aspect somewhat of an optional component. But there is little to no conception of sexuality being being "spiritual," or at the very least spirituality is not a necessary component of sexuality. It is, after all, reducible to the exchange of bodily fluids. All in all, I would say that sexuality is fundamentally a scientific phenomenon in the collective mind of the American culture. As such, we are quite a ways removed from the cultures of the early church and Medieval thinking.<BR/><BR/>The thinking of 1 Corinthians 6 is quite difficult for the 21st century mind to understand, in all its fullness, as it presumes an intimate connection between sexuality and spirituality:<BR/><BR/>"The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.<BR/><BR/>"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-55192768012744139312007-10-20T08:23:00.000-04:002007-10-20T08:23:00.000-04:00Form and function...so therefore sexuality has to ...Form and function...so therefore sexuality has to do with procreation, but I wonder, why did God make it also a pleasure? According to you guys, you can't imagine recreational sex. In fact it may even be be wrong.<BR/>Well, all I can say for our already overpopulated world is God help us!<BR/> <BR/>Bit busy today but I should be back to take up the gauntlet in a few hours...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-69171853029372568762007-10-20T03:19:00.000-04:002007-10-20T03:19:00.000-04:00every new life brings joyto the Fatherpromise of g...every new life brings joy<BR/>to the Father<BR/>promise of greatness, <BR/>destiny unleashed<BR/>on the earth, <BR/>as it is<BR/>glorious ones<BR/>around the throne<BR/>worshipping.<BR/>our world needs more babies. babies smile when smiled to,<BR/>laugh<BR/>when laughter is heard.<BR/>conception the awesome<BR/>mystery<BR/>of sperm meets egg,<BR/>Christ reaching Church,<BR/>creator and created,<BR/>eternal life<BR/>eternaldaniel hutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874414229531959571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-34294608260601615892007-10-19T16:15:00.000-04:002007-10-19T16:15:00.000-04:00Also, on overpopulation and starving; this is an o...Also, on overpopulation and starving; this is an oversimplification. Those countries where these things exist are the result of societies left in pagan and animistic darkness, tree worship, rock worship, demon worship. Plus many of these places are ruled by ruthless warlords and dictators who reject God's commands to have a just society, a knowledge of Jesus Christ, a place replete with good farming methods, a sound economy, & personal freedom. Of course, this isn't a panacea, but it's foundational to a just, equitable, and prosperous society. That is why Christ came--to rescue us from darkness and redeem the (this!) world. We're not waiting for the Rapture--we've got work to do. Christ will establish his kingdom this way, by redeeming the world: people, families, cities, nations and cutlures through the wisdom that comes from him, and upon which we are totally dependent.Christopher Mark Van Allsburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16955371990568269785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-55732479714524969592007-10-19T15:54:00.000-04:002007-10-19T15:54:00.000-04:00Purpose with restrictions and total purpose are tw...Purpose with restrictions and total purpose are two different things. <BR/><BR/>But, I do believe Christians should exercise their God-given ability to reproduce. And to be honest, I don't have the birth control issue settled. I believe in the God of the covenant, and that Christian parents should raise covenant-keeping children. <BR/>The kingdom grows this way at a rate perhaps faster than with Billy Graham crusades. But that's anoter topic.<BR/><BR/>Also, having babies doesn't mean overpopulation and starvation. That's a myth. Yes, there is death, but only after life happens first! The cultural mandate from Genesis is still being fulfilled physically and spiritually (the great commission). <BR/><BR/>What, the Bible's commands ceased in the middle ages? What brought that on? Our postmodern and modern epistemologies? The Bible is culturally relative now?<BR/><BR/>Look, the basic premise holds true: man + woman = life--and that by design. Man + man = death. Sodomy is rejected in the Scripture over and over. <BR/><BR/>asenokoites= man (with emphasis on sex) + bed (a euphemism for the sexual act). [BAGD] Homosexual activity, whether done in a monogomous relationship, in a temple of idolators, or as a prostitute is condemned. <BR/><BR/>the scholarly tools I have for just simple, basic language study show this word fron 1 cor, 6:9 to mean sodomist activity. Paul uses the same word in 1 Timothy. Scholars are certainly NOT confused about this word. BAGD is apprx 100 yrs old, and the latest scholarship shows the editors were correct. the word is used many times in koine as well as classic greek. Why confuse the issue? Death swallows life in the sodomist act, and God designed the penis for the vagina and vice versa. Why is that so hard to understand?Christopher Mark Van Allsburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16955371990568269785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-57135754023482901672007-10-19T10:23:00.000-04:002007-10-19T10:23:00.000-04:00Chris, Now,that's an interesting response: penis i...Chris, <BR/>Now,that's an interesting response: penis in vagina = making babies = life .'. good, biblical, etc. <BR/><BR/>That was what, 2,000 y.a. and more? But still perhaps somewhat true too through the middle ages. <BR/><BR/>But now, Babies = overpopulaton = starvation = global warming = world out of whack .'. penis in vagina = death and perhaps even ...<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, you should also be against any form of birth control too with a hermeneneutic like that!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-79235400810591214842007-10-18T20:14:00.000-04:002007-10-18T20:14:00.000-04:00the words in the greek nt have stumped scholars? ...the words in the greek nt have stumped scholars? I have 3 yrs of greek behind me plus plenty of tools to boot. maybe it should be concluded that SOME scholars are stumped by the word, but not the scholars I've read. <BR/><BR/>Also, boiling the homosexual sin down to words studies is ridiculous. Even general revelation teaches us that such an act--sodomy--is just plain out of whack. <BR/><BR/>Sodomy? Please. It is not an expression of human love. Sodomy, the act of putting the penis into the anus, is the act of death swallowing life. The male genitalia have been recognized as the "fount of life" for centuries, and the rectum has been rightly understood that which rids the body of death. In the act of sodomy, death swallows life. <BR/><BR/>But God's design for sex creates life--children. The only reason people want to think the Bible is "iffy" on this issue is because of human depravity trying to usurp what God has both designed and said is lawful/unlawful and good/evil.Christopher Mark Van Allsburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16955371990568269785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-80688023437758610172007-10-15T04:44:00.000-04:002007-10-15T04:44:00.000-04:00Daniel, you have my heartfelt sympathies, for you ...Daniel, you have my heartfelt sympathies, for you are equating human interpretation and human theology with the Word of God that is "living and active and sharper than any two edged sword"... God and His Word are always contextual!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-61319778270125098372007-10-14T19:52:00.000-04:002007-10-14T19:52:00.000-04:00hi folksa perspective on this long conversation: r...hi folks<BR/>a perspective on this long conversation: reading it in entirety made my heart grow heavy as it became evident that our children will grow up in a world where the Word of God is constantly recontextualised according to the shifting sands of popular opinion. there is nothing new under the sun. what changes is our courage as believers to shun what the world considers to be honourable, and side with God's unfailing capacity to destroy the works of evil and heal the broken-hearted. hesitate before leading the little ones to sin in this matter. lead many to rightouesness and shine like the stars in the midst of a perverse generation.daniel hutchinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02874414229531959571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-17002775472038859812007-10-13T16:43:00.000-04:002007-10-13T16:43:00.000-04:00I started to answer Sam's Sinister Scenario, then ...I started to answer Sam's Sinister Scenario, then realized how long the comment was going to be, so I just made it into a new post. It is a good scenario, and hopefully others will join in the discussion because it brings to the surface many important issues.<BR/><BR/>I'll try to get that up by Monday.Jonathan Erdmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04234688186113838474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-67431842438832972812007-10-12T16:33:00.000-04:002007-10-12T16:33:00.000-04:00Yes Erdman - you started this whole thing - do you...Yes Erdman - you started this whole thing - do you have an opinion or are you just a rabble rouser?Melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10071513255237535104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-10483177437138696092007-10-12T13:54:00.000-04:002007-10-12T13:54:00.000-04:00Ok, that's fair enough so, let's put the same ques...Ok, that's fair enough so, let's put the same question to the quietly, quietly, fence sitting, Calvinistic, Erdmanian, PoMo, Tornado...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-4359595834543431292007-10-12T13:44:00.000-04:002007-10-12T13:44:00.000-04:00What/how would you want your pastor to continue th...<I>What/how would you want your pastor to continue the conversation?</I><BR/><BR/>To be quite honest - I have no idea.<BR/><BR/>The church I grew up in ignored anything questionable or even blatently awful - I wouldn't want it to be handled that way.<BR/><BR/>I just don't know how one <I>would</I> handle that.<BR/><BR/>My only experience in that arena was in highschool I was friends with a couple girls who were dating. <BR/><BR/>I wasn't supposed to know, but I did and once the one girl knew about it she demanded that I tell her if I thought it was sin and why. Wanted to know if I thought she was still a christian. <BR/><BR/>But she never asked me to accept her lifestyle. If it had been the girl was dating she would want to feel validated and I wouldn't have been able to give her that feeling.Melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10071513255237535104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-8926037506781545462007-10-12T12:24:00.000-04:002007-10-12T12:24:00.000-04:00Melody,It's worth studying how ideas like righteou...Melody,It's worth studying how ideas like righteous and holy have changed with the incarnation of Jesus. Jesus embraces the world, He becomes a human, eventually He embraces our sin. Before the incarnation, the idea of holiness is always accompanied by separation. After the incarnation, the heart of holiness is embrace. God embraces us, to pull a point out of context, "while we were yet sinners".<BR/><BR/>When faced with homosexuality or anything else that we think of a deviant, a common reaction is "how icky". That's one signal that we are being called to get in there and embrace, identify with and conquer that othering response.<BR/><BR/>It's not optional for a disciple of Jesus to stand aloof and to practice separation. The job now is only the ministry of reconciliation and one way to do this is to follow Jesus as He embraces all that is dark and then burns away the darkness with His loving light.<BR/><BR/>I'm starting to wax poetic so I better quit before it gets too purple!<BR/><BR/>Here's the thing: John comes to church, he is a new convert. The pastor asks him after the service to tell a bit about himself and he says that he is a successful businessman, basically an agnostic, who has been feeling a sense of conviction for some time and started reading the bible and decided that he believes in Jesus, that Jesus is his savior.<BR/><BR/>The pastor is really excited. A new convert, someone who can be discipled!<BR/><BR/>Then he says that after having been in love for 2 years, finally, 5 years ago he married Jack and they have one adopted child Julie, that they got from Sri Lanka, who is now 4 years old.<BR/><BR/>What/how would you want your pastor to continue the conversation?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-78974490582114059332007-10-12T11:13:00.000-04:002007-10-12T11:13:00.000-04:00I think it's pretty clear that at the heart of Jes...<I>I think it's pretty clear that at the heart of Jesus message is stuff like 'the last shall be first' and 'blessed are the poor in spirit' which incidentally is a pretty good definition of what coming out of the homosexual closet can do to someone who's trying to fellowship with the likes of today's conservative Christian.</I><BR/><BR/>It's also a good description of someone in prison - not to say that we can't fellowship with prisoners or homosexuals, just that being poor in spirit isn't validation.<BR/><BR/><I>It's called 'Othering' and the highest form of this fine art is taught in the gospel according to CCC (Conservative Christian Culture).</I><BR/><BR/>Wait - what's called "Othering"? <BR/><BR/>I'm confused.Melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10071513255237535104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-11873548192891950702007-10-12T09:26:00.000-04:002007-10-12T09:26:00.000-04:00Absolutely the same Jesus by whom everything was c...Absolutely the same Jesus by whom everything was created. The only thing is, in sopite of His having come and lived among us to show us what and who He really is, I mostly still don't get close. That's my sin. <BR/><BR/>Now, folks 4,000 years ago who had not the benefit of an incarnate God... saw through an even darker glass. i'd mauch rather rely on the picture painted by His own disciples than to try to decipher God's character from His interactions with such ancient cultures that i have no clue about at all.<BR/><BR/>I think it's pretty clear that at the heart of Jesus message is stuff like 'the last shall be first' and 'blessed are the poor in spirit' which incidentally is a pretty good definition of what coming out of the homosexual closet can do to someone who's trying to fellowship with the likes of today's conservative Christian.<BR/><BR/>It's "US" vs "THEM". We are experts at sniffing out that hidden sin and outing the culprit, all in the belief that by so doing we are furthering the purity of "OUR" fellowship. <BR/><BR/>It's called 'Othering' and the highest form of this fine art is taught in the gospel according to CCC (Conservative Christian Culture).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-31695691910299049862007-10-11T23:10:00.000-04:002007-10-11T23:10:00.000-04:00Melody, there is a similar problem of translation ...<I>Melody, there is a similar problem of translation with Sodom and Gomorrah. These cities were destroyed for their great wickedness but is that connected with homosexuality? I don't know and the text is less than clear.</I><BR/><BR/>I realize this - It is entirely possible that God wished to destroy the cities merely because they were full of men who wished to rape newcomers. The world may never know. I was merely using it as an example of a strong homosexual presence in a society.<BR/><BR/><I>I guess my way of trying to get to know God is to start with Jesus with whom I have a personal relationship and whom we do know a fair bit about from the NT.</I><BR/><BR/>And who was there from the start of creation? That Jesus? Just checking.<BR/><BR/><I>Jesus went out of his way to help and to heal the marginalised, the scorned of society, and the downtrodden.</I><BR/><BR/>And I'm all for helping and healing the marginalised and scorned - even the non-marginalised. I'm not picky.<BR/><BR/>I just don't agree with you on what constitutes <I>help</I>.Melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10071513255237535104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-6551179848289968992007-10-11T17:21:00.000-04:002007-10-11T17:21:00.000-04:00Sara, welcome back! 1Cor6 has two words of uncerta...Sara, welcome back! 1Cor6 has two words of uncertain usage, one that means soft, gentle, and the other that no one has a definite definition of because apparently Paul himself creates this word. In neither case is the translation clear. The English translations have taken these words as referring to gender confusion as well as male homosexuality or even pederasty and male prostitution, but I remain unconvinced.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, just as with heterosexuals where there is a right relationship that is not sinful, as well as lots of opportunities for sin, so too for homosexuality, and that is what I have been arguing for here for quite some time.<BR/><BR/>Melody, there is a similar problem of translation with Sodom and Gomorrah. These cities were destroyed for their great wickedness but is that connected with homosexuality? I don't know and the text is less than clear.<BR/><BR/>The other one is the Levite and that ended up being a heterosexual rape even though it started out as an attempted homosexual rape.<BR/><BR/>I guess my way of trying to get to know God is to start with Jesus with whom I have a personal relationship and whom we do know a fair bit about from the NT. Jesus went out of his way to help and to heal the marginalised, the scorned of society, and the downtrodden. So, I'm taking no chances on this issue till he tells me to desist!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12014124722441378520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-78521477094691399502007-10-11T15:37:00.000-04:002007-10-11T15:37:00.000-04:00Incidentally - you hold an interesting interpretat...Incidentally - you hold an interesting interpretation of the word "quick".Melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10071513255237535104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-65270911553470594942007-10-11T15:31:00.000-04:002007-10-11T15:31:00.000-04:00Melody, it strikes me that you are starting with t...<I>Melody, it strikes me that you are starting with the OT and saying: This is God, God hasn't changed. While i am starting with the NT (or even beyond the NT, how I see God now) and saying: This is God, God hasn't changed.</I><BR/><BR/>But all we know of God started with the OT! If you dismiss it out of hand the NT doesn't make any sense! And if you dismiss the NT what is your basis for knowing God now?<BR/><BR/><I>Do you not assume that your heterosexual orientation is God given,</I><BR/><BR/>Um - well yes. God does seem to approve of heterosexual marriage through-out the Bible.<BR/><BR/><I>Might I ask what this is referring to? I can't offhand recall such cultures myself.</I><BR/><BR/>Alright - badly phrased I suppose. There were definately cultures in which homosexual practices were embraced. Sodom and Gamorah are your typical example - but there's at least one other account in the OT about a similar situation to Lot's. <BR/> <BR/>And historically we know that homosexuality was practiced in ancient Rome. You probably wouldn't have had homosexual marriages, because people needed heirs, but they had homosexual relationships on the side.Melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10071513255237535104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9242710.post-80295140440665897772007-10-11T15:29:00.000-04:002007-10-11T15:29:00.000-04:00A drunk, a sexually immoral heterosexual offender,...A drunk, a sexually immoral heterosexual offender, greedy lifestyle, homosexual offending lifestyle. 1 Cor. 6:11 seems to suggest these things need "washed", forgiven; a reason Jesus died on a cross. To me, this would suggest that God would not embrace such things. <BR/><BR/>Whether it is homosexual lusting or greed, or drunkenness, etc., none appear to be seen as clean living (1 Cor. 6:11). To please one's Lord and God we would approach obedience on all such issues alike; with love and accountability for change in order to please God and offer Him thanks with our lifestyle.Sarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07873029852634018522noreply@blogger.com